Whether the Inclusion in a Complaint of only a Victim’s Initials Suffices to Enable a Determination of Probable Cause is a Case By Case Determination

State v. Dunson, Minn.Ct.App., 8/18/2009.  The criminal complaint in this (and a companion) case identified the victims only by initials.  The names were disclosed in discovery materials provided under the criminal rules.  The trial court, on its own, ruled that the use of initials in the complaints violated the rules of criminal procedure and due process requirements of the federal and state constitutions.  The trial court said that the name of the victim was an essential element of a complaint, the absence of which precluded a finding of probable cause.  Accordingly, the complaints were dismissed.  The state appealed.

First, it’s an appealable order. 

Second, it is generally unnecessary for purposes of determining probable cause to include the actual names of the victim of the alleged offense.  Rule 2.01 requires only that the trial court determine that an offense has been committed and that the charged defendant committed it.  The appellate court could find no requirement in this rule or any other rule that the actual name of the victim be stated in the complaint.  As a due process/notice requirement, whether the charging document adequately identifies the alleged victim through information other than a name is a fact specific question; a blanket pronouncement that the actual name must be provided in order to apprise a defendant of the nature and cause of the accusations against him goes too far.